Navigation Top
AGO Logo Graphic
AGO Header Image
File a Complaint
Contact the AGO
AGO Opinions with Topic: TRANSPORTATION
AGO 1980 No. 14 >  June 16, 1980
COUNTIES - TRANSPORTATION - BUSSES - COMMON CARRIERS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND PREEXISTING PRIVATE CARRIER (1) A county public transportation authority organized under chapter 36.57 RCW may not extend its operations to routes already served by a private carrier holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under RCW 81.68.040 without either acquiring the affected operating authority and equipment of the private carrier or entering into a contract with that carrier for provision of all or part of such service.(2) A county public transportation authority organized under chapter 36.57 RCW, when extending its operations to routes already served by a private carrier holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under RCW 81.68.040, may perform part of such service itself and contract with the private carrier to continue to operate part of the service.
AGO 1980 No. 25 >  December 31, 1980
COUNTIES - TRANSPORTATION - OLD AGE - CHILDREN - HANDICAPPED PERSONS
REDUCED OR ELIMINATED TRANSIT FARES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS, SCHOOL CHILDREN OR LOW INCOME OR HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS (1) A county transportation authority organized under chapter 36.57 RCW may entirely eliminate fares for all transit users if the system it operates can be sustained from taxes or other available revenues. (2) A county transportation authority may, likewise, reduce or eliminate fares for all classes of users during non-peak hours only, for the purpose of achieving a more balanced and economical operation.(3) Both because of a lack of statutory authority and possible constitutional objections under Washington Constitution, Article VIII, section 7, however, a county transportation authority may not, instead, directly reduce or eliminate fares only for (a) senior citizens, a category being created only on the basis of age, or (b) students attending public schools except (in the latter case) through an interlocal cooperation act agreement with participating school districts.(4) Likewise, although such action would not be constitutionally objectionable in the case of low income citizens or the handicapped, a county transportation authority presently lacks the requisite statutory authority to reduce or to entirely eliminate fares for those individuals.
AGO 1983 No. 13 >  July 25, 1983
DISTRICTS - SCHOOLS - TRANSPORTATION - CONTRACTS
APPLICABILITY OF PREVAILING WAGE LAW TO CONTRACTS FOR SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION The provisions of chapter 39.12 RCW, the state prevailing wage law, do not apply to bus drivers or like personnel employed by private companies providing transportation services to a school district by contract.
AGO 1962 No. 186 >  December 21, 1962
STATE FIREWORKS LAW - LICENSE - TRANSPORTATION - SHIPMENT OF FIREWORKS BY OUT-OF-STATE FIREWORKS MANUFACTURER
STATE FIREWORKS LAW ‑- LICENSE ‑- TRANSPORTATION ‑- SHIPMENT OF FIREWORKS BY OUT-OF-STATE FIREWORKS MANUFACTURER An out-of-state fireworks manufacturer who desires to ship his product into this state must obtain a Washington manufacturer's license unless his product is exclusively dangerous fireworks intended for public display, in which case his product may be classified for an importer or wholesaler holding a Washington license.
AGO 1984 No. 2 >  January 30, 1984
DISTRICTS - SCHOOLS - TRANSPORTATION - CONTRACTS
COMPETITIVE BIDDING ON SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS The provisions of RCW 28A.58.135 do not require school districts to go through a competitive bidding process prior to entering into a contract for pupil transportation services under RCW 28A.58.131.
AGLO 1980 No. 23 >  July 2, 1980
TRANSPORTATION - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA
OPERATION OF CHARTER BUS SERVICE By reason of RCW 36.57A.110, the Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Area recently established pursuant to chapter 36.57A RCW may operate a charter bus service to the same extent that such a charter bus service was previously operated by the City of Tacoma.
AGO 2013 No. 1 >  July 1, 2013
TRANSPORTATION
Voter Approval Requirement For High Capacity Transportation System Plan


A transit agency seeking to establish high capacity transportation service that does not intend to rely upon local option revenue sources authorized by RCW 81.104.150 through .170 is required to obtain voter approval of its system plan only if the transit agency participates in a joint regional policy committee.  Voter approval of the system plan is not required if the transit agency participates in a regional policy committee.

Content Bottom Graphic
AGO Logo